Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/23/2005 7:25:32 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
To: Tumbleweed_Connection

The NYTs is moving into a new building that was obtained by eminent domain. Nuff said.


2 posted on 06/23/2005 7:27:10 PM PDT by ProudVet77 (NASCAR - Because it's the way Americans drive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I can't read anymore drivel about what the NY Times thinks about the limits of "property rights".....because of the limits of its interpretation of "fair use rights". This story takes me to a link which I have to register for. Which I refuse to do.


3 posted on 06/23/2005 7:29:20 PM PDT by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

"Atlas Shrugged" is a great book. Not because Ayn Rand was a great writer (she wasn't), and not because the characters are believable (they aren't). It's a great book because it really captured the essence of the Left and their mania for redistribution. The idea that a private developer -- with friends in government -- could just reach out and take property away from a private owner is so totally ludicrous and un-American. And yet, here we are.


4 posted on 06/23/2005 7:31:46 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Somebody tell me the NY Times ran a disclaimer pointing out the fact that the city of New York did the exact same thing to make way for the NY Times new office building a couple of years ago.


5 posted on 06/23/2005 7:32:49 PM PDT by NavVet (“Benedict Arnold was wounded in battle fighting for America, but no one remembers him for that.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Is this why we have the 2nd Amendment?


10 posted on 06/23/2005 7:39:26 PM PDT by etcetera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

14 posted on 06/23/2005 7:45:22 PM PDT by austinmark (Torture? Koran abuse? I'd Rather Be A Koran In Gitmo THAN A Bible in Saudi Arabia !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest.

Theft is theft, no matter who the thief may be, nor how many vote to approve. By the Times' logic, slavery was justified by the majority votes in favor--since those who so voted justified their stance as being "in the public interest."

15 posted on 06/23/2005 7:46:39 PM PDT by sourcery ("Compelling State Interest" is the refuge of judicial activist traitors against the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
So the New York Times thinks this is just a dandy decision?

I found this sentence especially cavalier: New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated.

Perhaps not a one of these folks will be hurt; perhaps none of them have treasured family memories of the locale; perhaps not a single one had hoped to leave the home to their loved ones.

But this decision guarantees that this will happen other places. Now the family farms face yet more than just a few bad years bringing the wolf to the door: the lesser tax revenues from 100 acres of farmland will now be enough reason to displace what could be generations of family heritage.

What a disgusting decision. And how much more disgusting that the New York Times cheers it gleefully as it is proudly points out that it itself is the beneficiary of such an exercise in eminent domain.

16 posted on 06/23/2005 7:49:37 PM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

New York Times shows again that Communism alive and well. They promote it at every opportunity.


17 posted on 06/23/2005 7:49:51 PM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

you can't fight city hall


18 posted on 06/23/2005 7:57:19 PM PDT by mindwasp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
This was a "puke" decision period! It will erase the value of property more than any housing bubble ever will. What value is private property right now? It has no value anymore. Not when some cheap political hack that has been bought off will run a families out of town and build the next Widget Mart! Where are the "Conservatives" we voted into office?
19 posted on 06/23/2005 8:01:40 PM PDT by mr_hammer (I call them as I see them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

The New York Times is WAY out of touch with its constituents over at DU. They are as outraged as we are.

Does anybody at the times understand that this country was founded on property rights?

http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm


20 posted on 06/23/2005 8:04:40 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/canadahealthcare.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

This NY Times editorial will live in INFAMY. Just like their early 1900s editorial against the income tax.


27 posted on 06/23/2005 8:09:34 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/canadahealthcare.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I wonder how they feel about other ways in which land might be used to greater economic benefit such as, say, drilling in ANWR and other reserves for oil and gas.

Fire 'em up! Get those drills going! Time's a wastin' and the Supremes just said it was OKAY!


29 posted on 06/23/2005 8:14:17 PM PDT by SlowBoat407 (A living affront to Islam since 1959)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection; ntnychik; devolve; MeekOneGOP; Happy2BMe; PhilDragoo; Smartass; Boazo
I think it's wrong except in VERY extraordinary circumstances. But then, I live in Texas where the wide open spaces are WIDE!

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

30 posted on 06/23/2005 8:14:22 PM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

The pinheads at the NYT have been whining and wringing their hands over the Patriot Act allowing the FBI to check out their "libury" cards. Now, here they are cheering the government for taking away some of our rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. ((Shrug)).


32 posted on 06/23/2005 8:15:26 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (We did not lose in Vietnam. We left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Mao se Tung understood the limits of property rights.

Law of the jungle says bigger gorilla wins. Government is the bigger gorilla.

33 posted on 06/23/2005 8:17:54 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
If a city (or the NYT) can't exist without stealing peoples' property, then maybe it is time, like Babylon, Carthage, Ephesus, USSR, and untold others, to fade away.

They exist for those they serve, not the other way around, and do not have an intrinsic right to exist.

I expect to be evicted if I don't pay my annual rent to Da Gubbmint; but now my landlord can even kick me out onto the street at whim.
38 posted on 06/23/2005 8:56:37 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (The world needs more work horses, and fewer Jackasses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Article 3 section 2 paragraph 2 gives The Congress the Power to limit any and all matters before any court including the Supreme Court. All Congress has to do for ANY LAW is to put "The Supreme Court Shall Remain Silent on This Issue" at the end.Now getting Congress to exercise their authority over the judiciary is another matter. The are a bunch of spineless whimps.

"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. "


40 posted on 06/23/2005 8:59:43 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
When and Where does SCOTUS derive the right to use international law in deciding the legality of American Law?

The uglier thing is that Sleezebag Kennedy used principles from Zimbabwe--home of fascist dictator Robert Mugabe.

For our edification, Mugabe is the same pile of human refuse who's put nearly a quarter million of his own people into utter homelessness and razes orphanages in his lust for absolute power.

What Part of "The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land" don't these charlatans understand?

And why is SCOTUS pulling plays out of Mugabe's playbook and telling the government it's perfectly OK?

Finally, as Michael Savage points out time after time again, there is a nasty stench on the bench. After this decision, I'm fully convinced this's the case.

Any ideas on how to Constitutionally rectify this situation--other than praying that Stevens, Breyer, and Kennedy retire from the bench?

43 posted on 06/23/2005 9:56:48 PM PDT by rzeznikj at stout (Liberalism: How can we stick our feet in our mouth today??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson